When Can Courts Halt Government Infrastructure Projects? The Hernandez Ruling

The general rule is that courts cannot stop government infrastructure projects through injunctions. Presidential Decree No. 1818 was issued to prevent delays in essential public works. But the Supreme Court has clarified that this prohibition is not absolute. In Hernandez v. National Power Corporation (G.R. No. 145328, March 23, 2006), the Court ruled that when a project raises genuine questions of law — particularly involving constitutional rights like the right to health — courts retain the power to issue injunctions.

The Dispute: Power Lines Over Dasmariñas Village

In the late 1990s, the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) constructed 29 steel towers, each 53.4 meters high, to support 230-kilovolt transmission lines running from Sucat, Parañaque to Quezon City. The lines passed near Tamarind Road in Dasmariñas Village, where the petitioners resided.

The residents feared the health effects of exposure to electromagnetic radiation, citing studies linking such exposure to cancer and leukemia. They raised their concerns with NAPOCOR, which offered several options — including rerouting the lines, increasing the distance from homes, or placing the lines underground. Negotiations failed, and the residents filed a complaint for damages with a prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction.

The trial court granted the TRO and later issued a preliminary injunction, preventing NAPOCOR from energizing the lines. NAPOCOR challenged these orders before the Court of Appeals, invoking PD 1818, which prohibits courts from issuing injunctions in cases involving government infrastructure projects.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the trial court could issue a TRO and preliminary injunction against NAPOCOR despite the prohibition in PD 1818.

NAPOCOR argued that the law was clear: no court may issue injunctions against infrastructure projects. The residents, on the other hand, argued that their right to health and safety should prevail.

The Ruling: PD 1818 Has Limits

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the residents, reinstating the trial court's injunction. The Court explained that while PD 1818 prohibits injunctions against infrastructure projects, this prohibition applies only to controversies involving facts or the exercise of discretion in technical matters.

When the case involves questions of law, courts cannot be prevented from exercising their power to restrain or prohibit administrative acts.

In this case, the residents raised two clear questions of law:

1. Whether the project violated their constitutional right to health under Article II, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution; and
2. Whether NAPOCOR violated Section 27 of the Local Government Code, which requires prior consultation with affected communities before implementing government projects.

Because these were legal questions, not merely technical disputes, the trial court had jurisdiction to issue the injunction.

Probability of Harm Is Enough

The Court also clarified the standard for issuing a preliminary injunction. Under Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, an injunction may be granted when the act complained of would probably violate the applicant's rights and tend to render the judgment ineffectual.

The Court found sufficient evidence to justify the injunction: published studies linking electromagnetic fields to illness, NAPOCOR's own brochure acknowledging safety distances, and a privilege speech by a congressman criticizing NAPOCOR's handling of the project. The Court noted that even the possibility of harm was enough to warrant preserving the status quo pending trial.

The "Hammer" Falls on Legal Shortcuts

The Court also warned against government taking legal shortcuts. Citing MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc., the Court declared that even when government acts with good intentions, it cannot run roughshod over the rule of law. As the Court put it, "let the hammer fall and let it fall hard" on illegal attempts to bypass legal requirements.

Practical Takeaways

• PD 1818 is not a blanket shield. Courts may issue injunctions against government infrastructure projects when the case involves genuine questions of law, not just technical or factual disputes.
• Constitutional rights can override the prohibition. Allegations of violations of the right to health, due process, or other constitutional guarantees can take a case outside the scope of PD 1818.
• Prior consultation matters. Under the Local Government Code, government agencies must consult affected communities before implementing projects. Failure to do so can be a basis for judicial intervention.
• "Probably" is the standard. For a preliminary injunction, applicants need only show that their rights are probably violated — not that violation is certain.
• Note the change in law. PD 1818 was later amended by Republic Act No. 8975, which now vests exclusive jurisdiction over such injunctions in the Supreme Court, except in cases of extreme urgency involving constitutional issues.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.